knowledge diplomacy in action - british council · 2. differentiating knowledge diplomacy from...

KNOWLEDGE DIPLOMACY IN ACTIONJane Knight PhD

www.britishcouncil.org/research-policy-insight

This discussion paper presents a new perspective by using a knowledge diplomacy framework that emphasises collaboration, reciprocity and mutual but different benefits for actors.

© M

at W

right

Acknowledgements 4

Foreword 5

1. The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations 61.1 Objectives and outline of discussion paper 61.2 Terminology 71.3 Towards a working definition of knowledge diplomacy 71.4 Why study knowledge diplomacy? 9

2. Differentiating knowledge diplomacy from cultural, science and education diplomacy and soft power 102.1 Misconceptions about knowledge diplomacy 102.2 Knowledge diplomacy is broader than cultural diplomacy 102.3 Knowledge diplomacy is inclusive of science diplomacy but more comprehensive 102.4 Why not use the term education diplomacy? 102.5 Knowledge diplomacy is not soft power 112.6 A soft power framework versus a diplomatic framework 11

3. Key characteristics of knowledge diplomacy 123.1 Diversity of actors and partners 123.2 Focus on higher education, research and innovation 123.3 Recognition of different motives and needs, and the collective use of resources of actors 123.4 Reciprocity: mutual, but different, benefits 123.5 Based on negotiation, collaboration and co-operation 133.6 Different levels of collaboration 133.7 Commonality of issues – addressing global issues 133.8 Build and strengthen relations between and among countries 13

4. Knowledge diplomacy in action – selected case studies 14The Pan African University 14Humanitarian Relief Initiatives 14Women and Gender Research Institute 14International Joint Universities – the German Jordanian University 14Zika Rapid Response Project 14Australia–India Strategic Research Fund 15Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) – Climate Change 15RENKEI: Japan–UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives 15

5. The Pan African University 165.1 Purpose and principles 165.2 Establishment of the PAU and supporting partners 175.3 Research, knowledge production and innovation 175.4 Graduate programmes 175.5 Mutuality of benefits 185.6 PAU links 18

Contents

6. Humanitarian relief initiatives – Brown University, USA 196.1 Rationales and background 196.2 Local actors, global networks 196.3 Research 196.4 Mutuality of benefits 206.5 Links 20

7. The Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies – University of Granada, Spain 217.1 Key developments in the growth of the institute 217.2 Education, training and workshops 217.3 Research, knowledge production and Innovation 227.4 Partnerships and networks 227.5 Mutuality of benefits 227.6 Links 22

8. International joint universities – the German Jordanian University 238.1 The German Jordanian University 238.2 Rationales and purpose 238.3 University–industry partnerships 238.4 Research and innovation 248.5 Education and student exchange 248.6 Strengthening academic, cultural and industrial ties 248.7 Links 24

9. Sustainable Development Solutions Network – the United Nations 259.1 Organisational structure and actors 259.2 The SDSN university partners programme 259.3 Research, knowledge production and innovation 259.4 Mutuality of benefits 269.5 Links 26

10. Australia–India Strategic Research Fund 2710.1 Government collaboration 2710.2 Research, knowledge production and innovation 2710.3 Workshops and fellowships 2710.4 Mutuality of benefits 2810.5 Links 28

11. RENKEI – The Japan–UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives 2911.1 Founding and organisational structure 2911.2 Actors, partnerships and networks 2911.3 Education, training and workshops 2911.4 Research, knowledge production and innovation 3011.5 Mutuality of benefits 3011.6 Links 30

12. Challenges 31

References and further reading 32

Acknowledgements

Preparing a discussion requires a team effort. My thanks go to Michael Peak from the British Council for his wise counsel and support. Grateful appreciation is extended to Dr Grace Karram Stephenson, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, for her keen insights and enormous help in researching the Knowledge Diplomacy in Action case studies.

Jane Knight PhD Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada [email protected]

This research was commissioned by the British Council and authored by Jane Knight.

If you wish to reproduce, scan, transmit or use this publication or any part of it for another purpose, please contact the British Council for written permission.

The views expressed in this research do not necessarily represent those of the British Council and are the researcher’s own, developed through co-commissioned research.

4

Foreword

At the British Council’s Going Global conference in Kuala Lumpur in 2018 there was a discussion among leaders and practitioners in international higher education on the concept of ‘knowledge diplomacy’. The discussion was sparked by a paper authored by Jane Knight entitled ‘Knowledge Diplomacy. The way forward?’, and although the paper introduced a new approach to thinking of the role played by international higher education institutions in initiating and fostering bilateral and multilateral relations, the discussion revealed that many commentators continue to hold quite traditional views of what diplomacy is and how it should work.

But at a time when many nation states appear to be looking inwards, perhaps it is important to consider new approaches to building and maintaining international relations, especially to address global challenges – issues such as climate change, food security, water etc. are not confined by national boundaries, and it is the responsibility of us all to find solutions.

It is particularly timely to discuss how higher education and research institutions can collaborate, together with other government and non-government actors to develop global relations and address global challenges.

What can we learn from cases where higher education and research institutions have led programmes which build much more than a relationship between two universities, but which contribute to bilateral and multilateral relations – where higher education takes the lead in the new diplomacy?

The British Council is delighted to invite Jane Knight to develop these thoughts and ideas, and her discussion paper Knowledge Diplomacy in Action explores a number of practical examples of knowledge diplomacy impacting on the world.

This paper presents an opportunity to explore the concept further and move towards a consensual definition and understanding of knowledge diplomacy and its potential impact.

Michael Peak, Head of Higher Education Systems Research, British Council

Knowledge Diplomacy in Action 5

1. The role of international higher education, research and innovation in international relations

International higher education (IHE) has a long and rich history that contributes to relations between and among countries. In today’s more complex, interdependent and globalised world there are new rationales, opportunities, benefits and risks attached to the role and contribution of higher education (HE) and research to international relations. Examining the role of IHE in building relations between and among countries is not new. Traditionally, it has been done through a cultural or science diplomacy lens and, more recently, a soft power approach. This discussion paper presents a new perspective by using a knowledge diplomacy framework which emphasises collaboration, reciprocity and mutual but different benefits for actors.

The overarching purpose of this discussion paper is to promote a greater awareness and understanding among HE actors of the role and dimensions of knowledge diplomacy. This is done by comparing and distinguishing knowledge diplomacy from similar terms, analysing its key characteristics and providing concrete examples of knowledge diplomacy in action. This discussion paper has not been framed as an academic publication and thus only a few references are inserted as footnotes. Resources for further reading are provided at the end of the paper.

1.1 Objectives and outline of discussion paperThe specific objectives of this discussion paper are as follows:• to increase awareness and

understanding of knowledge diplomacy in the HE sector

• to differentiate knowledge diplomacy from related terms such as soft power, cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy and education diplomacy

• to provide examples of knowledge diplomacy in action to broaden and deepen the understanding of knowledge diplomacy

• to demonstrate the role of knowledge diplomacy in addressing pressing global issues.

The first half of the discussion paper concentrates on three major points: 1) establishing the need to study the role of HE in international relations; 2) clarifying the fundamental differences between cultural diplomacy, science diplomacy, soft power and knowledge diplomacy; and 3) identifying the primary characteristics of knowledge diplomacy. Together these three sections aim to increase understanding of the fundamental features of knowledge diplomacy in relation to its contributions to addressing global issues.

The second half introduces a series of case studies which demonstrate knowledge diplomacy in action. These examples of knowledge diplomacy focus on how, through co-operation, reciprocity and mutuality of benefits, IHE can strengthen relations between and among countries to address current global issues using international higher education, research and innovation (IHERI) as key strategies.

The examples of knowledge diplomacy in action have been intentionally chosen with the following factors in mind. They:• represent all regions of the world• include bilateral and multilateral

initiatives• address a variety of global issues• involve HE institutions as key

participants among a broader group of actors

• consist of both long-term successful projects and new initiatives

• include all aspects of HE in terms of teaching and learning, research and innovation, and service to society

• contribute to the building and strengthening of relations between and among countries of the world.

These initiatives were carefully chosen to illustrate that knowledge diplomacy includes, yet goes far beyond, typical IHE activities such as student/scholar mobility, joint research projects and conferences.

6 Knowledge Diplomacy in Action

1.2 TerminologyFour concepts form the backbone of this discussion paper: higher education, research, innovation and international relations. It is important to explain how these concepts are used to understand knowledge diplomacy. The following descriptions of the terms are not formal scholarly definitions as such, but are more descriptive and aim to orient the reader as to how they are used here.• Higher education refers to the

processes of teaching and learning, as well as training, in both formal and informal settings, using a broad range of strategies.

• Research includes the gathering of information on a subject, investigation, and experimentation aimed at producing new knowledge.

• Innovation refers to the application of new knowledge or research findings to produce change or new ideas.

• International relations refers to the bilateral or multilateral relations between and among countries.

1.3 Towards a working definition of knowledge diplomacyDiplomacy has a very long history. As a result, there are myriad interpretations of diplomacy. Many scholars and professionals believe that there is no one universally accepted definition of diplomacy, as it is often defined in terms of issues and interests at stake, approaches taken or strategies used. Ultimately, the concept most fundamental to diplomacy and most frequently cited is ‘the management of relations between and among countries’. 1

The traditional way of understanding diplomacy focuses on the role of the government, usually the Department of Foreign Affairs, and its representatives in embassies around the world. Primary tasks included representation of the country’s interests, negotiation of agreements and treaties, and mediation of conflict. There is no question that projection and protection of self-interests are front and centre, but diplomacy concentrates on finding solutions through negotiation, mediation and compromise. Security and economic development were the central issues in traditional diplomacy, and still are.

Diplomacy has changed significantly, moving beyond a focus on security and economic development. In contemporary diplomacy there is a broader set of actors, different issues and challenges to be addressed and new approaches and strategies being used. It is no longer only the government and their representatives who are the major agents; there is a diversity of new actors, including civil society, multinationals and government departments other than foreign affairs. Theme-based diplomacy, such as health, environmental, trade and refugee diplomacy, has grown in importance. New approaches and instruments, such as track two, digital, summit and public diplomacy, are being used.

Knowledge diplomacy is one of the new types of diplomacy to emerge more recently. An early interpretation of the term (1995) related to the negotiation of intellectual property rights by World Trade Organization members. 2 However, defining knowledge diplomacy in relation to intellectual property rights in trade agreements was a narrow and short-lived approach.

1. Knight (2015).2. Ryan (1998).


A more recent conceptualisation of knowledge diplomacy has broadened the focus to ‘the role of IHERI in building/strengthening relations between and among countries’. 3 This acknowledges the growing importance of HE in a more interconnected and interdependent world and how it contributes to international relations and the challenges inherent in addressing current global issues.

Knowledge diplomacy can be understood as a two-way process, as illustrated in Figure 1. Knowledge diplomacy involves the role of IHERI in managing and strengthening international relations and the role of international relations in enhancing IHE, research and innovation.

This working definition of knowledge diplomacy is not neutral, as it infers a positive outcome. While the intention

is to strengthen international relations as well as enhance IHERI, there can be unexpected negative outcomes depending on the issues and actors.

International relations can have negative effects on IHERI and vice versa. There are examples where bilateral HE co-operation schemes have been closed due to strained relations between countries. This cannot be denied and merits urgent attention. Thus, an outstanding question in the analysis of IHERI and international relations is what terms and analytical frameworks should be used to capture the realities of international relationships which have a negative impact on IHERI. More research is needed on this topic.

Important to note is that the proposed working definition of knowledge diplomacy does not include or

delineate the actors, rationales, strategies and outcomes. These aspects are deliberately not included because they can differ dramatically according to the issues being addressed, the strategies being used and the primary actors and countries involved. There are a multitude of different drivers and rationales pushing and pulling knowledge diplomacy. For the purposes of this discussion paper, the major drivers of knowledge diplomacy are the pressing global issues which cannot be solved by one nation alone. Today, global issues are also national issues, and many national issues are also global issues. Issues such as climate change, food security, epidemics, refugees and migration, poverty reduction, water, peace and security, human rights and social justice know no boundaries.

3. Knight (2018).

Figure 1: Knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process

KnowledgeDiplomacy

IHERI strengthens IR

IHERI

IR strengthens IHERI

IR


1.4 Why study knowledge diplomacy?Why study knowledge diplomacy? This is a complex question which begs a far more comprehensive analysis than this discussion paper can provide. However, there are a number of current issues and critical developments which necessitate a deeper understanding of the two-way relationship between IHERI and international relations. These include:• The number of world issues, some

call them crises, which cannot be solved by one nation alone. A bilateral or multilateral approach is imperative for addressing issues and threats such as climate change or epidemics.

• The evolution of diplomacy such that contemporary diplomacy includes new actors, new strategies, new issue-based diplomacies and new approaches.

• The changing landscape of IHE. In addition to the traditional elements of IHE, such as student/scholar mobility, joint research projects and institutional agreements, there are new developments such as knowledge hubs, international joint universities, regionalisation of HE and policies, and transformation of university networks into regional universities.

• The escalation of national public–private partnerships between universities and industry to international and regional levels.

• The increasing importance of and emphasis on the knowledge society as a broader concept than knowledge economy.

• The combination of soft power (attraction and persuasion) with hard power (military and economic sanctions) into smart power.

• The need for reliable research, verifiable evidence and knowledge sharing in the emerging ‘post- truth era’.

• The shifting of power dynamics between the East and West.

9

2. Differentiating knowledge diplomacy from cultural, science and education diplomacy and soft power

2.1 Misconceptions about knowledge diplomacyKnowledge diplomacy presents a new approach to exploring the relationship between IHERI and international relations. As such, the term is interpreted and used in a variety of ways as it becomes part of the HE and international relations discourse. Knowledge diplomacy is being used interchangeably and confused with terms such as soft power and cultural and science diplomacy. There are instances where knowledge diplomacy has been inappropriately described as a way to lobby for more national and regional government funding for IHE. The term knowledge diplomacy has also been incorrectly used as a synonym for the commercialisation of IHERI in the knowledge economy. Furthermore, knowledge diplomacy is often called ‘soft diplomacy’, ignoring the fact that ‘hard diplomacy’ is a contradiction in terms and confused with hard power. As with many new concepts, the misconceptions of knowledge diplomacy are leading to confusion about the use and interpretation of this new term.

The purpose of this section is to discuss knowledge diplomacy as a more comprehensive process than individual traditional HE activities, and to differentiate it from soft power and other forms of diplomacy such as cultural, science and education diplomacy.

Understanding the difference between these different terms involves analysing two aspects. The first is understanding the inherent values attached to the different approaches, and the second is analysing the nature of the strategies.

2.2 Knowledge diplomacy is broader than cultural diplomacyCultural diplomacy has been a popular term for decades. While the meaning and related activities have evolved, it primarily refers to international exchanges, exhibitions and events in the arts, music, theatre, literature, film, media and architecture, as well as sports and other cultural expressions. The goal of cultural diplomacy is primarily to enhance cross-cultural awareness, trust and relations between and among countries. 4 When HE is referred to as part of cultural diplomacy, the most common activities cited are student/scholar exchanges, language learning, international sports/debating/competitions, and cultural events. While cultural diplomacy can include a wide range of people-to-people education and cultural exchanges, it is not broad enough to include the central elements of HE, such as research and innovation. Rather, the emphasis is on people mobility. The more recent trend of HE providers moving across borders to offer foreign programmes in the students’ home country is not accommodated in the notion of cultural diplomacy.

2.3 Knowledge diplomacy is inclusive of science diplomacy but more comprehensiveThe increasing importance of science diplomacy as evidenced in both national government science policies and international summits begs the question of whether science and knowledge diplomacy are not one and the same. This is a question worthy of consideration, and the answer depends on how broadly the term ‘science’ is being defined and

used. If science is broadly interpreted to mean ‘knowledge’, then there is a close relationship. Traditionally, science diplomacy has been seen in terms of hard sciences, but more recently it has been placed within the broader framework of science, technology and innovation. 5 There is no doubt this reflects the centrality of science and technology in today’s knowledge economy. However, the focus on science and technology excludes, to a large extent, other sectors, issues and disciplines related to the social sciences and humanities. For instance, it is highly unlikely that science diplomacy initiatives or negotiations would include issues such as refugee or human rights initiatives. Thus, while full acknowledgement is given to the importance and role of science diplomacy it does not overrule the necessity of knowledge diplomacy, which is a more inclusive concept in terms of education and the production and application of knowledge.

2.4 Why not use the term education diplomacy?The term ‘education diplomacy’ is usually applied to basic education and is linked closely to advocacy. The Association for Childhood Education International has adopted this term and believes that ‘education diplomacy uses the skills of diplomacy grounded in human rights principles to advance education as a driver for human development’. 6 This raises the question of whether the term ‘education diplomacy’ or ‘knowledge diplomacy’ is more appropriate for HE. In contrast to education diplomacy, knowledge diplomacy includes research and the use of research and new knowledge for innovation, two areas not usually

4. Gienow-Hecht and Donfried (2010).5. Flink and Schreiterer (2010).6. www.educationdiplomacy.org


associated with basic education. Furthermore, the drivers and outcomes differ. Education diplomacy is oriented to human development, while knowledge diplomacy focuses on addressing and solving common societal issues which face countries in all regions of the world.

2.5 Knowledge diplomacy is not soft powerIn the mid-nineties the term ‘soft power’ was introduced as a distinct and viable alternative to hard power. Soft power was described as ‘the ability to influence others and achieve national self-interests through attraction and persuasion’. 7 It is different than hard power, which uses coercion through military force and economic sanctions to achieve national interests. The concept of ‘smart power’ emerged later and is a calibrated combination of soft and hard power strategies used to achieve a country’s goals. 8

Fascination with the term ‘soft power’ resulted in its application to many sectors and types of bilateral or multilateral relationships, and HE was no exception. The debate and articles about HE as an instrument of soft power skyrocketed in the early 2000s, much of it from Asia. Even longstanding collaborative academic programmes, capacity building and development projects were framed as soft power initiatives. IHE was solidly positioned as part of the competitiveness and power agenda. The popularised term ‘soft power’ was used to inappropriately describe collaborative HE partnerships as being about competitiveness, dominance and a power dynamic while, in reality, many were rooted in the notion of co-operation, reciprocity and mutuality of benefits.

It is not the first time that a ‘fad phrase’ became regularised without deep analysis of why it was used and the implications of doing so.

In many ways, the term ‘knowledge diplomacy’ emerged as a counterbalance or alternative to notions of soft power. While some IHE initiatives may be based on competitiveness and dominance, and are correctly labelled as soft power, this is certainly not true of all. It is imperative that the difference between soft power and knowledge diplomacy is clear. Hard power is not usually used in HE, although some may suggest that closing borders to individuals from certain countries and economic sanctions directly affect HE. Overall, it is imperative that the differences between soft power and knowledge diplomacy be made clear.

2.6 A soft power framework versus a diplomatic frameworkWhile both soft power and knowledge diplomacy initiatives exist in HE, they differ significantly in their motives, the nature of relationships, strategies and underlying values. In short, there is a difference between a power framework and a diplomatic framework. The following section discusses the main attributes that distinguish between soft power and diplomatic frameworks.• Motives: The common motivations

behind soft power include self-interest, increased influence and relative dominance. Thus, a vertical or top-down approach is used to achieve desired outcomes. In comparison, the motivation behind diplomacy is closely linked to addressing common issues and self-interests in a collaborative fashion. All actors benefit, albeit in different ways. National self-

interests are still at play – it would be naive to deny this – but a more horizontal co-operative relationship exists among partners or actors in diplomacy.

• Strategies: In a soft power approach, influence and self-interests are achieved through attraction and persuasion, often using funding and propaganda. Diplomatic strategies, on the other hand, involve negotiation, communication, conciliation, co-operation and mediation, supporting the collaborative horizontal approach.

• Values: The values underpinning a soft power paradigm are domination, authoritarianism and competition to achieve national goals and self-interests. These differ significantly from diplomacy, which builds on values of reciprocity, mutuality and compromise to meet the different needs and interests of partners towards reaching a common end.

• Outcomes: The soft power approach is often characterised as one-sided in terms of benefits. The diplomatic approach instead tries to achieve a win-win outcome with mutual but different benefits for all major players.

When examining the role of IHERI in international relations, the diplomatic approach is based on fundamentally different motives, values and outcomes than those of soft power. In the next section, knowledge diplomacy is analysed using the diplomatic framework. The characteristics or key elements of knowledge diplomacy are discussed at both a philosophical and a pragmatic programme level.

7. Nye (2004). 8. Nye (2009).


3. Key characteristics of knowledge diplomacy

One of the stated objectives of this discussion paper is to ‘provide examples of knowledge diplomacy in action to broaden and deepen the understanding of knowledge diplomacy’. To do so it is useful to identify a number of the fundamental characteristics or elements of knowledge diplomacy initiatives.

An important aspect of describing, defining and understanding knowledge diplomacy is to identify fundamental or common characteristics of this approach. The process of identifying these characteristics revealed several different types of elements involved. These include guiding values or principles; different ways of interacting or types of relationships among the range of actors; specific types of activities; and a spectrum of benefits and outcomes. In selecting common and fundamental aspects of knowledge diplomacy, the risk was a list that was either too narrow and discriminating or too broad and inclusive. The following list of eight characteristics is a start. It is not comprehensive, but one which identifies important and strategic dimensions of knowledge diplomacy and aligns closely with the diplomatic framework described above.• Diversity of actors and partners.• Focus on HE, research and innovation.• Recognition of different motives

and needs and collective use of resource of actors.

• Reciprocity – mutual, but different, benefits.

• Based on negotiation, collaboration and co-operation.

• Different levels of collaboration.• Commonality of issues – addressing

global issues.• Builds and strengthens relations

between and among countries.

3.1 Diversity of actors and partnersKnowledge diplomacy includes a diversity of actors actively engaged in the teaching and learning process, collaborative research, knowledge production, and innovation projects. While universities and colleges are key players, there is a range of other actors involved. These include national, regional or international centres of excellence, research institutions, foundations, think tanks, professional associations, non-governmental organisations related to education, and governmental departments and agencies. In the majority of cases the HE actors also work with other sectors and/or disciplines, depending on the nature of the initiative. Common partners include industry, civil society groups, foundations and governmental agencies. A key feature of knowledge diplomacy is, therefore, a diversity of HE actors working collaboratively with partners from other sectors to address global challenges.

3.2 Focus on higher education, research and innovationKnowledge diplomacy builds on the fundamental functions of HE (teaching and learning, research, knowledge production and innovation, and service to society). The process of knowledge diplomacy involves multiple forms of IHERI, as dictated by the nature and complexity of the issue being addressed. Individual IHE activities (e.g. student mobility, scholar exchange, joint conferences) are elements of knowledge diplomacy when they are networked to a larger series of activities involving multiple actors and strategies. These individual activities which are part of bilateral institutional agreements or networks have many benefits, but often they are not specifically designed to contribute to sustainable international relations between countries, and often they do not address global challenges.

3.3 Recognition of different motives and needs, and the collective use of resources of actorsBecause knowledge diplomacy brings together a network of different partners from various sectors to address common global issues, there are often different rationales and implications for the individual countries and actors involved. Each country and actor has different needs and brings specific resources to the partnership. These need to be respected and negotiated to ensure that the strengths and opportunities for each partner are optimised to address the global issue at hand. This is done through a horizontal collaborative relationship that acknowledges the different but collective needs and resources of the partners. Leadership that recognises different needs, benefits and resources is critical, but not in the form of dominance, authoritarianism or coercion.

3.4 Reciprocity: mutual, but different, benefitsDifferent needs and resources of actors will result in different benefits (and potential risks) for partners. Mutuality of benefits does not mean that all actors or countries will receive the same benefits. It does mean, however, that the principle of mutuality and reciprocity of benefits will guide the process. As the collaboration unfolds, there will be both collective and context-specific benefits accrued for actors and countries.


3.5 Based on negotiation, collaboration and co-operationKnowledge diplomacy is based on horizontal relationships between and among major actors and countries and focuses on co-operation, collaboration, negotiation and compromise to ensure that the overall goals are met and there are benefits for all. This is founded on a win-win approach fundamental to knowledge diplomacy.

3.6 Different levels of collaborationKnowledge diplomacy includes different levels of bilateral and multilateral co-operation at regional and international levels.

3.7 Commonality of issues – addressing global issuesIt is acknowledged that there may be varied motivations driving knowledge diplomacy. For the purposes of this discussion paper, addressing global issues which require collaboration among HE actors and other partners in different countries is the primary rationale or driver for a knowledge diplomacy approach. This necessitates an agenda which highlights common issues and concerns among countries who believe that a collaborative and co-ordinated effort will lead to results that could not be achieve by one country alone. As discussed, while the issues of concern will be common, the different needs, resources, benefits and implications may vary among actors and countries. Succinctly put, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but each part brings different strengths and may receive different benefits.

3.8 Build and strengthen relations between and among countriesCentral to the notion of knowledge diplomacy is co-operation among the different actors and partners. This depends on, and further strengthens, positive and productive relations between and among countries. It builds on but goes beyond the contribution that bilateral and multilateral agreements between HE institutions make. Clearly, there is a sliding scale with regard to the breadth and depth of contributions knowledge diplomacy can make to relations between and among countries, but working towards addressing pressing global issues that affect each and every country is an important way forward.


4. Knowledge diplomacy in action – selected case studies

The collaborative knowledge diplomacy approach is being explored as an alternative to the more one-sided soft power approach, and it is helpful to look at some current initiatives that could be labelled as knowledge diplomacy. The case studies below were selected because they demonstrate many of the eight characteristics discussed in the previous section. Furthermore, they are linked to different regions of the world, represent partnerships between HE actors and partners from other sectors, and address a variety of global issues.

The following list provides a short overview of the case studies. Sections 5–11 provide more details of each case study.

The Pan African UniversityThe African Union, in co-operation with other African and international organisations, has created five distinct, regional research institutes. Located in five different regions of the continent, each is dedicated to a specific set of disciplines. Each institute provides graduate programmes and serves as a network hub for research collaboration with other universities and research partners (industry, government and NGOs) in the region. It is a multilateral knowledge diplomacy initiative where IHERI serves to strengthen African regionalisation, and collaboration among countries and actors on the continent serves to advance IHERI.

Humanitarian Relief InitiativesBrown University in the USA works bilaterally with countries in the Global South to promote more research and training on humanitarian aid. It is at the cutting edge of working in local settings, creating and distributing new knowledge to serve better policy making and management practices in disaster management and related issues. This knowledge diplomacy initiative addresses a critical global issue by working collaboratively with local and national universities, governmental agencies and industry in host countries, while training young academics both at Brown and beyond to undertake research on this critical issue.

Women and Gender Research InstituteLocated at Granada University in Spain, but closely networked with other universities, research centres and NGOs across Europe and beyond, this research institute and related graduate programmes puts women and gender issues at the centre of interdisciplinary research and training of new scholars. It is a self-funded, multilateral knowledge diplomacy project that has developed over three decades. It demonstrates how co-operation with other HE and NGO partners nationally, regionally and internationally serves to advance research, knowledge exchange and advocacy on this critical issue. Likewise, it demonstrates how IHERI is effective in building closer relationships within Europe to advance the regionalisation agenda.

International Joint Universities – the German Jordanian UniversityThe establishment of internationally cofounded universities, developed by two or more institutions or countries, is a fascinating knowledge diplomacy development. These universities are based on collaboration, mutual benefits in the strengthening of IHERI, and bilateral relations between countries. The German Jordanian University (GJU), established in 2005, exemplifies how the strategic use of joint programme development and collaborative research between academics and industry in both countries yields benefits for all, and how student and scholarly exchanges build closer cultural and scientific relationships between the two countries.

Zika Rapid Response ProjectThe outbreak of the Zika virus in Brazil, and the threat of it spreading to other countries, resulted in a collaborative research project that originally involved researchers from Brazil and the UK but soon included academics from universities around the world. The urgency for research on treatment and prevention of Zika resulted in an abbreviated time period between the application and awarding of funding by three agencies in the UK and a foundation in Brazil. While this knowledge diplomacy project is primarily oriented to research, it illustrates the importance of collaboration between expert researchers and the advantages of involving different sectors and disciplines to undertake the research and share the new knowledge.


Australia–India Strategic Research FundSince 2006, the Australia–India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF) has strengthened relations between Australia and India by supporting scientific research projects that are jointly undertaken by researchers in both Australia and India. Studies must address mutual priority areas for the two nations, such as agriculture, astronomy and astrophysics, biomedical devices and implants, clean energy technologies, food and water security, information and communication technology, marine sciences, nanotechnology, stem cells and vaccines. AISRF grants can be used for research, workshops and fellowships for early-career researchers, thus focusing on several of the key strategies of knowledge diplomacy.

Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) – Climate ChangeThis successful multilateral knowledge diplomacy initiative was established by the United Nations in 2012 to mobilise global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical solutions for sustainable development, especially in the area of climate change. SDSN work is guided at the global level by a group of internationally recognised experts. Universities play a major role in research and innovation projects in 32 countries, involving researchers from across different disciplines and sectors, as well as theme-based groups. In addition, a Universities Partnership Program develops curricula based on the new knowledge developed through research. All SDSN projects aim to close the gap between emerging research and the necessary policy development to effect change, especially regarding the climate crisis.

RENKEI: Japan–UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives RENKEI, which means collaboration in Japanese, is a university research network and knowledge diplomacy initiative between Japanese and UK universities. RENKEI was founded in 2012 with the goal of strengthening relationships between the two nations by developing academic–industry research collaborations that would address major societal issues. The network includes six universities in Japan and eight universities in the UK, as well as dozens of research partners from industry, business and civil society. Between 2012 and 2018, RENKEI’s multi-actor working groups organised joint research projects, workshops and conferences which addressed pertinent issues such as sustainable energy, war, slavery, aerospace engineering, renaissance entrepreneurship and living with an ageing society.


5. The Pan African University

The Pan African University (PAU) was initiated in 2013 to establish a regional university system to serve the entire continent in key development areas. The PAU is made up of five postgraduate research institutes, hosted at leading universities in the West, North, East and Central regions of Africa. Each institute focuses on one of four strategic areas for African advancement, as determined by the Conference of Ministers of Education (African Union). The initiative was started by the 53 member states of the African Union and is funded jointly by the African Development Bank, host Africa countries and international partners.

The research institutes are:• Kenya: basic sciences, technology

and innovation, located at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

• Nigeria: life and Earth sciences, including health and agriculture, located at the University of Ibadan

• Cameroon: governance, humanities and social sciences, located at the University of Yaoundé II

• Algeria: water and energy sciences, located at the Abou Bakr University of Tlemcen

• South Africa: Space Sciences Institute, located at Cape Peninsula University of Technology (planned).

5.1 Purpose and principlesThe PAU is guided by the following objectives and principles.

Objectives of the Pan African University• Develop continent-wide and world-

class graduate and postgraduate programmes in science, technology and innovation, and human and social sciences.

• Stimulate collaborative, internationally competitive, cutting-edge fundamental and development-oriented research in areas having a direct bearing on the technical, economic and social development of Africa.

• Enhance the mobility of students, lecturers, researchers and administrative staff between African universities to improve on teaching, leadership and collaborative research.

• Contribute to the capacity building of present and future African Union stakeholders.

• Enhance the attractiveness of African HE and research institutions for effective development and retention of young African talent, while attracting the best intellectual capital from across the globe, including the African diaspora.

• Invigorate dynamic and productive partnership with public and private sectors.

Principles of the Pan African University• Excellence and international

partnerships in academic and research activities.

• Academic freedom, autonomy, quality assurance and accountability.

• Strengthening the capacity of existing African institutions.

• Encouraging intra-African mobility of students and academic and research staff.

• Offering the African diaspora an innovative continental framework to contribute towards the development of HE and research in Africa.

• Promoting interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research programmes integrated into development policy at continental and national levels.

• Enhancing and optimising use of information and communication technologies for pedagogy, research and management.

A close review of these objectives and principles reveals how the PAU, as a knowledge diplomacy initiative, strives to enhance collaboration and integration between and among countries. Through regional networks of universities and research partners, this multilateral approach strengthens, and is strengthened by, a continental IHERI framework.


5.2 Establishment of the PAU and supporting partnersThe African Union Heads of State agreed on the formation of a PAU in July 2010. Following this ratification, a call for proposals was issued to top universities interested in hosting a thematic institute. Candidates were evaluated on their expertise in the subject area, international partnerships and research collaboration, high admissions standards, quality management processes and availability of infrastructure and staff.

The activities at each institute are supported by international lead thematic partners, which provide specialised training in the subject area. For instance, Germany supports the research institute in Algeria, Sweden works with the institute in Cameroon, India and Japan are involved in supporting the institute in Nigeria, and China assists the institute in Kenya. The European Union has also been involved, providing the initial funding for student scholarships. The African Development Bank was the main driver of technical assistance in the project, providing support to conduct cost-forecasting and solidifying the involvement of the other financial actors. Further start-up funds were provided by the World Bank.

A long-term goal of the PAU is for institutes to develop as research hubs in their regions, linking to satellite centres with similar research programmes at other universities. When fully realised, the PAU would be the sum of five thematic institutions with 50 related centres of excellence across Africa.

5.3 Research, knowledge production and innovationIn terms of research and innovation, the Institute for Water and Energy Sciences in Algeria offers a clear example of the PAU’s collaborative research projects. Its researchers have worked with Germany’s DAAD to host international research symposia which bring together specialists in water and energy sciences from around the world to work with the institute and its network partners.

Two flagships research projects have resulted from these events. First is the Sustainable Urban Resource Supply, which works to ensure sustainable development for urban and semi-urban regions, specifically targeting the supply chains for water, energy and food. The second flagship project is the West African Science Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use. This project was developed jointly by researchers from the universities of Cotonou (Benin), Bonn (Germany) and Miami (USA). The aim of this project was to create sustainable institutional relationships that develop a community of experts in areas of natural resource management.

5.4 Graduate programmesThe PAU offers masters and doctoral degrees at each institute. These programmes are available to students from African countries as well as those of the African diaspora. Students are offered graduate scholarships that cover tuition, accommodation, a living stipend, and travel and medical allowances. These scholarships also provide funds to cover students’ academic research costs.

Since its inception in 2011, the PAU has seen a significant increase in the number of students applying to study. In 2018, the four operating institutes received more than 30,000 student applications, an increase of 250 per cent on the year before. Enrolment quotas have been put in place to ensure regional representation and gender parity. No more than 20 per cent of new students can be from the host country, and an equal number of men and women must be accepted.

A key feature of the PAU is that graduate programmes are designed to intentionally build a unified African identity beyond national differences. Students are required to take two general education courses to further this aim: General History of Africa and Gender and Human Rights. Students also sign a contract committing to work in Africa after the completion of their programme. Finally, students are required to collaborate with industrial partners throughout their programme, with internships being mandatory. These are key elements of a knowledge diplomacy approach, and they reflect the intention of the PAU to strengthen relations between and among African countries and to build IHERI capacity in Africa.


5.5 Mutuality of benefits

Strengthening HE, research and innovationThe organisational structure of the PAU is set up to mutually benefit African nations. Beyond providing programmes for students from a diverse range of countries, the PAU has established key research areas to lead regional networks throughout the 21st century. Researchers benefit from the increased collaboration in their region and the international support of their lead thematic partners. National governments in the host counties have benefited from increased research capacity at their institution and developing a leadership role in their region. Finally, the PAU offers a strategic plan for addressing major societal issues facing the continent.

Enhancing relations between and among countries in Africa and beyondThe PAU aims to be a key player in the first ten-year phase of the African Union’s Agenda 2063. The Agenda 2063 outlines a vision for pan-African unity for the creation of an ‘integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens, representing a dynamic force in the international arena’. The Agenda 2063 document, ratified in 2015, charts a path for inclusive and sustainable development, a politically integrated continent, peace and security, fused together by a strong ‘cultural identity, common heritage, shared values and ethics’.

The final core aspiration of the document is to make Africa ‘a strong, united, resilient and influential global player and partner’. Throughout the Agenda, explicit plans are made to develop and fund a space research and exploration programme on the African continent, which is considered essential for the continent’s security and communications. These goals align directly with the long-term development of the PAU.

5.6 PAU linkswww.opportunitiesforafricans.com/pan-african-african-union-university-2018-2019-masters-phd-scholarships-for-africans/

www.aau.org

https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20180222/pan-african-university-life-and-earth-sciences-institutes-paulesi-awarded

http://africanbrains.net/2011/05/10/kenya-to-host-pan-african-university-institute/

www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181213131610720

www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Boards-Documents/Multinational_-_Pan_African_University_Project_-_Appraisal_Report.pdf

www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en/success-stories/regional-institutes-global-competitiveness-pan-african-university

https://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/afrian-union-establishment-of-the-pan-african-university-march-2011.pdf

https://au.int/fr/newsevents/27562/launch-afdb-45-million-usd-grant-support-pan-african-university-project-african

www.daad.de/der-daad/unsere-aufgaben/entwicklungszusammenarbeit/foerderprogramme/hochschulen/infos/en/43836-pan-african-university-institute-of-water-and-energy-sciences-incl-climate-change/


http://www.opportunitiesforafricans.com/pan-african-african-union-university-2018-2019-masters-phd-scholarships-for-africans/




http://www.aau.org








http://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181213131610720

http://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20181213131610720

http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Boards-Documents/Multinational_-_Pan_African_University_Project_-_Appraisal_Report.pdf





http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en/success-stories/regional-institutes-global-competitiveness-pan-african-university












http://www.daad.de/der-daad/unsere-aufgaben/entwicklungszusammenarbeit/foerderprogramme/hochschulen/infos/en/43836-pan-african-university-institute-of-water-and-energy-sciences-incl-climate-change/







6. Humanitarian relief initiatives – Brown University, USA

The Brown International Advanced Research Institutes (BIARI) programme brings together academic, government and civil society actors to establish best policies and practices in humanitarian response efforts based on solid research and extensive consultation. The primary motivation of BIARI is to enable more synergetic relationships between the academic and applied worlds of humanitarianism to create more effective and sustainable policy and practice. BIARI programmes have been held in Spain, Mexico, Kenya and the Philippines. These on-location training and research events foster international collaboration and develop expertise among leading actors on issues related to disaster relief, while respecting the issues that are specific to the host country. BIARI programmes have contributed extensively to a knowledge base and network on disaster relief that benefits the local host communities while being accessible to a global audience. This aligns closely with the knowledge diplomacy approach, which emphasises HE working collaboratively with a diversity of international actors and partners to enhance knowledge and practice on addressing global issues.

6.1 Rationales and backgroundStarting in 2009, Brown University (Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs) began a series of summer institutes – BIARI – that bring humanitarian researchers and practitioners from the Global South to Brown University for intensive training on disaster response. The courses run for two weeks, with 100 participants accepted into the programme each year. All costs for participants are fully covered through the financial support of Santander Universities and Brown University. The institutes cover three main themes each year. For example, the 2018 topics were forced population displacement, governance and development, and social entrepreneurship in health humanitarianism.

In 2016, the BIARI leadership decided to offer BIARI courses on location in other countries to draw on local expertise and develop region-specific interventions. In response, efforts turned to designing context-specific courses for other countries and conducting in-depth, onsite training in partnership with national organisations. Each year the training institute takes place in a different country and focuses on one topic, such as global health politics (Spain) or migration (Mexico).

6.2 Local actors, global networksIn 2018, the BIARI workshop was held in the Philippines with the theme ‘Community Resilience to Natural Disasters’. The event was seen as a necessary response to growing urbanisation and the challenges this presents for humanitarian response in light of the Philippines’ annual typhoon season. The course was designed to bring together stakeholders from a range of sectors to envision how local communities could be more prepared for natural disasters. The event was designed to build new collaborations among local actors in concert with international expertise to incubate transformative ideas about disaster preparedness, humanitarian response and post-emergency transitions. The long-term benefits include generating new research, educational programming, advocacy and, eventually, policy change.

Aligning with diversity of actors as a key characteristic of knowledge diplomacy, the Philippines workshop was organised by a range of local and global partners, including the Philippines Disaster Resilience Foundation (PDRF), Ayala Corporation, Holy Angel University, University of Santo Tomas, University of Nueva Caceres, Jose Rizal University, the British Embassy, Globe Telecom and the World Bank. Similarly, the participants included representatives from local government, universities, private corporations, NGOs and international

non-governmental agencies, primarily from the Philippines but also from neighbouring countries.

These collaborative international and local initiatives build on and foster mutually beneficial, horizontal networks in which actors from multiple countries and sectors work together to plan for humanitarian disasters.

6.3 Research The findings from the international workshops and the ongoing humanitarian research conducted at Brown University result in numerous publications and proposed interventions each year. In 2016, Brown University launched a new project called the Humanitarian Innovation Initiative (HI2), a repository to host this emerging research on disaster relief. A main driver of HI2 was the intensely multidisciplinary nature of global disasters and the need for researchers from different fields to work together when developing responses.

The research housed in HI2 comes from a wide variety of fields, from engineering to organisational management. In addition to building a repository of humanitarian relief research and reference, the HI2 programme also conducts new research by both local and international scholars to examine and monitor humanitarian responses around the world. The project also recognises the need to encourage innovation in the practice of disaster relief and management across a range of countries. To that end, a seed grant programme funds recipients to pilot a new ‘innovation-driven’ approach to improve the ‘effectiveness and accountability of disaster preparedness, humanitarian response, and post-emergency reconstruction’. Since 2017, the seed grant programme has funded new initiatives in area such as dam-spill prevention, women’s health screening in emergencies, hypertension, diabetes treatments for refugees, and the logistics of supply chain in health deliveries.


6.4 Mutuality of benefitsThe humanitarian relief programmes and events organised by BIARI provide a good example of how knowledge diplomacy activities are mutually beneficial to all collaborating partners, while the benefits themselves may be very different. For example, the regional, national and local communities in the Philippines that hosted the workshop benefited from context-specific research and the generation of new, practical strategies that can be implemented in their context. In contrast, the American-based researchers from Brown University who participated in the Philippines event benefited from the international collaboration and were able to orient their research to the realities of challenges faced in providing humanitarian relief and disaster aid, and strengthening their role as leaders in the area of humanitarian response.

These seminars, workshops, seed grants and research projects illustrate the diversity of strategies, actors and sectors involved in responding to societal issues such as humanitarian disasters. While the various academic departments and research institutes at Brown University are the main stakeholders on the American side, the programme has been successful in developing horizontal partnerships with other countries, bringing together stakeholders from the government, academia and NGO sectors, locally and internationally. This knowledge diplomacy case study demonstrates how working collaboratively across sectors, disciplines and borders can create new knowledge and innovations to address the global issue of humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

6.5 Linkshttps://watson.brown.edu/hi2/about

https://watson.brown.edu/biari/about/history

https://watson.brown.edu/biari/institutes/beyondbrown/resilience

https://watson.brown.edu/hi2/research


https://watson.brown.edu/hi2/about







7. The Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies – University of Granada, Spain

The Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies is located at the University of Granada, Spain, and is a global hub for scholarship on the position of women in society. The Institute was founded in 1985 by a group of scholars committed to including feminist perspectives in their teaching and research in order to address societal inequalities between men and women. Since its founding, the Institute has positioned itself in several European and global networks, developing joint-university degree programmes and collaborative research with universities in five continents. The Institute has also become a hub in the Andalusian region, partnering with civil society to critique policy at regional and national levels.

7.1 Key developments in the growth of the instituteThe initial creation of a feminist research group at the University of Granada was a loosely organised group of like-minded researchers. However, in 1988 the first call of the Andalusian Research Plan (ARP) formally cemented the activities of the researchers into a research institute, with funding from both the ARP and the University of Granada. By 1990, the Institute had developed an academic journal and held regular research events related to feminist research methods and gender inequity and had articulated the following objectives: • Establish scientific co-operation

relations with other national and international university institutes, as well as with related entities and centres.

• Promote and develop scientific and technical research in the field of women, feminist and gender studies.

• Contract with public and private entities, or with individuals, to carry out relevant activities of scientific, technical or academic interest, as well as specialisation, updating or training courses.

• Strengthen collaboration and team building to promote new lines of research and to promote the gender perspective in different areas of knowledge.

• Promote and develop doctoral and postgraduate programmes, in accordance with current regulations at the University of Granada.

• Disseminate the results of the research through publications, monographic courses, conference cycles and other activities, and through its own editorial and magazine collection.

• Advise scientifically and technically, and participate in any other activity aimed at research, training and provision of services and dissemination of issues within its scope of competence.

Since its inception, the Institute has received its primary funding from the University of Granada’s annual budget grant. A small amount of revenue is also received from the doctoral and masters programmes. Other one-time grants have been received from the Institute of Women (Madrid), the Andalusian Institute of Women (Seville), the Granada City Council, and the provincial Council of Granada, and further funding has been received for special projects. This is an example of a self-funded, multilateral knowledge diplomacy project.

In 1991, the first major international affiliation was formed when the Institute joined Europe’s Erasmus exchange programme, allowing students from Granada to travel to women and gender programmes at universities in Toulouse, Bradford and Helsinki. The Institute’s entrance into the Erasmus network solidified its first international student exchange network, often the first step for a knowledge diplomacy initiative.

In 2001, the Institute began to play a leadership role in networking universities in the Andulusian region of Spain and was the main driver and promoter of the Andalusian Interuniversity Doctorate for Women and Gender Studies. This joint programme was an extensive undertaking established with other universities in Spain and proved to be the precursor for an international network that would later evolve.

7.2 Education, training and workshopsAs of 2019, the Institute has an extensive network of international exchanges and joint degree programmes for graduate students, both in the European Union and globally. The two flagship programmes are the Andulusian Interuniversity Doctorate for Women and Gender Studies and the European Erasmus Mundus Master (GEMMA) in Women’s and Gender Studies. Students benefit from contact with a wide range of feminist scholars and can participate in research events across the partner universities.

The Institute has also developed exchange programmes with universities in the USA, Colombia, South Africa, Morocco and India. Students travel to receiving institutions for part of their degree, developing their professional network and supporting international data collection. This is a vital component of knowledge diplomacy, as early-stage researchers develop into internationally networked, skilled researchers capable of addressing global issues collaboratively.


7.3 Research, knowledge production and innovationThe Institute’s professors are well published and networked in European scholarship on women and gender. The Institute has also been a leader in producing publications such as FEMINAE, the Gender and Equal Opportunities Expert and Arenal magazine, which considers women’s history in global settings. Research activities at the Institute bring together a diversity of actors including academics, historians, artists and civil society advocates. Studies have documented the absence of women in major societal institutions, highlighted the challenges women face in professional settings, and called for new policies to support gender parity at multiple levels of government.

7.4 Partnerships and networksThe Institute is a member of the GRACE: Gender and Cultures of Equity initiative. Started in 2016, the GRACE initiative is a consortium of eight universities and two industry partners designed to provide 15 early-stage researchers (ESRs) with funding to conduct research on gender inequity or cultures of equity.

The GRACE project has three main objectives: 1. to equip the next generation of

ESRs to play a leading role in developing advanced techniques for investigating the production of cultures of gender equality

2. to translate creative and critical capacities into innovative cultural practices within and beyond academia

3. to enable ESRs to take up positions as experts in producing new gender equalities cultures.

The GRACE network hosts an annual conference at which academics from partner universities such as the University of Granada can present their research. The event includes the launch of smartphone apps, documentaries and art exhibits in an attempt to broaden the academic–industry partnerships of their funded scholars.

The Institute of Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Granada is also a member of several other projects that demonstrate its success and desire to work collaboratively with other national, regional and international initiatives. In addition to the GRACE project, it participates in ATGENDER, ATTEND, WISE, and EDGES, all committed to addressing the global challenge of gender equity. For example, ATGENDER is the professional association of academics involved in work on gender and sexuality across 55 universities in the European Union. ATGENDER has several well-ranked publications, including journals and book series, and acts as a clearing house for information on grants being offered to fund gender-related research. The Institute’s leading role in networks like GRACE and ATGENDER has positioned it as a key player in the EU’s plan to strengthen research and innovation. The Institute is shaping the research agenda on women and gender, while ensuring that bodies such as the EU prioritise this research.

7.5 Mutuality of benefits The research networks and publications developed at the Institute play an important role for the host countries and institutions who are involved. In Spain, the international study experiences undertaken by the Institute’s graduate students position them as leaders in the European Union. Studies indicate that women academics with higher rates of international collaboration often produce more research, and this effect may be an important outcome of the Institute’s prolific global network. Furthermore, partner universities from the Global South benefit from the experience and expertise of Institute faculty as they participate in exchanges. Through a knowledge diplomacy approach, the Institute has strengthened IHERI efforts and collaboration between countries and academics in Europe who are working to change gender inequity.

7.6 Linkswww.ugr.university/pages/research_innovation_transfer/research_institutes_centres/the_institute_of_womens_and_gender_studies

http://imujer.ugr.es/instituto/quienes-somos/

http://imujer.ugr.es/financiacion/

http://graceproject.eu/consortium/university-of-granada/

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020

https://atgender.eu/about/mission/


http://www.ugr.university/pages/research_innovation_transfer/research_institutes_centres/the_institute_of_womens_and_gender_studies






http://imujer.ugr.es/financiacion/





https://atgender.eu/about/mission/

8. International joint universities – the German Jordanian University

The landscape of IHE is changing dramatically. An innovative development in international academic partnerships is the creation of international joint universities (IJUs). IJUs are new independent universities created though collaboration between HE institutes and governments from two or more countries. These new institutions move beyond the branch-campus model, where one university establishes a ‘bricks and mortar’ campus of its own in another country. Instead, an IJU is cofounded by a university located in the host country and a university or consortium of universities located in the foreign partner country. As of 2019, there are 22 IJUs operating around the world and at least three more are in the planning stage.

An IJU is an interesting example of knowledge diplomacy, given that it is based on a close partnership between partner country universities and governments and involves different academic programmes, often jointly developed, bilateral research projects often involving other sectors, and the creation of new knowledge to benefit society. In many cases, the departments of both education and foreign affairs of the host and partner country are directly involved in setting the policies, regulations and governance of an IJU, but these approaches differ from country to country.

Germany has been a leader in this area, establishing seven new institutions in partnership with foreign governments in Vietnam, Egypt, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Oman and Turkey. Two more are in the planning stage. In the German model of the IJU, it is common for the new IJU to begin with a memorandum of understanding between the two governments, after which a committee or council, with representation from both countries, is established to determine the mission and operations of the institution. These councils include academics and government officials, and mutual priorities, responsibilities and benefits are decided together. IJUs are a form of knowledge diplomacy directly focused on HE actors and partners working together towards developing a long-term sustainable relationship between partner countries.

8.1 The German Jordanian UniversityThe German Jordanian University (GJU) is an interesting model of an IJU. It was one of the first IJUs, created in 2005 with the explicit mandate to integrate ‘people and nations; cultures and disciplines; science and practice’. It draws on the German research model to create relevant academic programmes to meet the human resources needs of Jordan and build high-tech research capacity in Jordan through partnerships between Jordanian and German academics and industries. It also facilitates student and scholar exchanges between the two countries. The GJU is also committed to outreach in Jordan and the surrounding region, promoting issue-specific research alongside industry partners.

8.2 Rationales and purposeThe GJU was jointly created and funded by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany. A main purpose of the GJU was to establish an institution in Jordan modelled on the German applied-sciences model of HE and research. The GJU is characterised by a strong focus on putting knowledge into practice and on promoting knowledge transfer, often in collaboration with industry.

8.3 University–industry partnershipsA key component of knowledge diplomacy that is seen in the GJU is developing strong ties between the university and its industry partners in Jordan and the neighbouring Middle East countries. This is complemented by close alliances with German academics and their industry partners. These partnerships have served to establish mutual priorities for research and collaboration, ensuring there are mutual but different benefits according to the needs and priorities of all stakeholders.

At GJU, an Office for Industrial Links was established as the main liaison between university and non-university actors for the purposes of research, training and employment. The GJU has signed 75 partnership agreements with German businesses, from Thymoorgan Pharmaceuticals to Puma Athletics. Within Jordan, 32 partnerships have been formed, including several with major NGOs and governmental agencies. These partnerships focus on research and innovation and provide students with the opportunity to complete five- or six-month internships in Germany or Jordan and transition smoothly into the workforce.


8.4 Research and innovationIn the case of the GJU, faculty in all graduate programmes are actively engaged in research, with an emphasis on producing new knowledge for application and innovation, especially with industry. However, research is also conducted for the broader public good in Jordan and the surrounding area. For example, the department of architecture and interior architecture has a strong focus on architectural conservation. Faculty and graduate students work with local communities to develop sustainable architecture projects that take into account heritage buildings and surrounding archaeological sites. Likewise, the graduate department of social work focuses on the needs of migrants and refugees, and faculty research deepens the knowledge base on displaced people, with a specific focus on Syria and other countries in the Middle East.

8.5 Education and student exchange The movement of students and recent graduates between Germany and Jordan is a central component of the GJU. Since 2006, up to 100 students per year travel in both directions between the two countries. The GJU has developed agreements with several German universities to host Jordanian students for a year of exchange during their degree. German students are also able to study at the GJU, either on short-term visits or for their whole degree programme. The number of students participating in these programmes has increased steadily each year, strengthening the academic and business links between the two nations. This is a good example of how student exchange is an important component of the larger multi-faceted partnerships within knowledge diplomacy.

8.6 Strengthening academic, cultural and industrial tiesWhile IJUs vary in the extent of their government involvement, the GJU is a government-driven initiative and a clear example of how joint universities can strengthen the national academic, cultural and industrial ties between nations. New relationships have been formed between Jordanian and German academics and industry. Students are offered numerous opportunities to study and conduct research in both countries and can experience German culture on campus in Jordan through the activities of the German Language Centre. All undergraduate students at the GJU are taught introductory levels of German. German language acquisition is helpful for Jordanian students and researchers as they forge deeper ties with German partners. The GJU is but one example of an IJU and of knowledge diplomacy. It demonstrates how developing joint universities can lead to closer long-term bilateral ties between two countries at many different levels.

8.7 Linkswww.gju.edu.jo/content/german-language-center-432

www.daad.de/der-daad/unsere-aufgaben/entwicklungszusammenarbeit/aufgaben/en/37671-our-activities-in-development-cooperation/

https://nohanet.org/german-jordanian-university

www.gju.edu.jo/content/industrial-relations-committee-7229

www.gju.edu.jo/content/about-office-3565


http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/german-language-center-432

http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/german-language-center-432

http://www.daad.de/der-daad/unsere-aufgaben/entwicklungszusammenarbeit/aufgaben/en/37671-our-activities-in-development-cooperation/







http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/industrial-relations-committee-7229

http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/industrial-relations-committee-7229

http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/about-office-3565

http://www.gju.edu.jo/content/about-office-3565

9. Sustainable Development Solutions Network – the United Nations

The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) was established by the United Nations in 2012 to mobilise global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical solutions for sustainable development. The urgent need for an international network on developing innovation solutions to ensure sustainable development was recognised in 2012 but galvanised into action after the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was signed and the United Nations passed the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDSN aims to close the gap between emerging research and the necessary policy development to effect change, especially regarding climate crisis.

The SDSN plays an important role in unifying national responses to climate change. Because of the complex relationship between industry, carbon emissions and national development, countries have often faced national opposition to externally mandated climate policies such as emissions reduction. With the implementation of local SDSN networks, supported by the SDSN’s global leadership council, a nationally based expert network has been developed to improve international co-operation and communication.

The SDSN’s central position is evident in the leadership role it plays in the monitoring and evaluation of the SDGs for the European Commission. Working together with partners in civil society, the SDSN conducted a regional assessment of the EU to determine the strength and challenges countries faced in implementing the SDGs and the targets of Agenda 2030.

9.1 Organisational structure and actorsThe SDSN is managed by the UN and is organised for action through sub-groups at both global and national levels. It also hosts a range of cross-cutting thematic groups. At the global level, the SDSN is a council of experts representing all geographic regions and diverse sectors (academia, government, industry and civil society). This broad geographic spread, and the diversity of actors from different sectors of society, is a hallmark of knowledge diplomacy. These experts, led by an executive, draw on their respective research areas to develop concrete objectives that will support the implementation of the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement.

At the national level, country-specific SDSN councils have been established in 32 countries to support local implementation. The HE sector, especially through universities and research institutes, is a main stakeholder. The SDSN and its country sub-groups provides research funding to universities and projects that address environmental sustainability. Large-scale, multi-country projects including universities, research institutes, centres of excellence and other private and public actors have been funded, implemented and monitored.

Thematic networks have also been developed to lead multi-country research projects on specific issues. In 2019 there were 12 thematic networks. These cover a range of areas related to sustainability, such as health for all, sustainable agriculture and food systems, humanitarian-development links, forests, oceans, biodiversity and ecosystems, and redefining the role of business for sustainable development. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) is a thematic network that strengthens the ties between nations as it brings together country experts on a specific problem.

9.2 The SDSN university partners programmeThe SDSN operates the university partners programme, which develops and provides curriculum materials to non-affiliated HE institutions. Through this programme, institutions can participate in the SDG Academy, which provides the findings of SDSN research in a teachable format. The curriculum is developed in collaboration with the SDSN’s global faculty, which includes lead experts from academia and industry from around the world.

9.3 Research, knowledge production and innovationThe SDSN has positioned itself at the centre of global research on climate change. By bringing together experts from public and private research institutes, centres of excellence, think tanks, universities and industry around the world, the SDSN has developed strong research partnerships and capacity. The DDPP is a good example of knowledge diplomacy working across countries and disciplines to address a pressing global problem. It is a global collaboration of energy research teams charting practical pathways to deeply reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their own countries. The research activities of the DDPP are led by experts at 40 academic and industry-related research institutes, located in the 16 countries which produce the largest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. The countries include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the UK and the USA.


Between 2017 and 2019, the DDPP, supported by SDSN, produced in-depth country reports for each nation outlining concrete ‘pathways’ to decrease greenhouse gases in such a way as to limit global warming to two per cent. Following the publication of the individual country reports, the DDPP executive developed a master report with a cross-cutting analysis of collective findings. Reports developed by the DDPP are publicly available.

To ensure that this research continues and the next generation of scholars is interested and prepared to conduct research on decarbonisation, the DDPP has prepared an online toolkit to assist climate researchers in areas such as calculating carbon reductions. This multilateral knowledge diplomacy initiative is not only addressing critical issues such as climate change, it is also ensuring the sustainability of its research by producing resources, such as the toolkit, targeted for current and future researchers from academia and industry.

9.4 Mutuality of benefitsSDSN reports are designed to be practically applicable and are used by governments to chart a course for climate intervention. SDSN research also has strong ties to civil society and is used to further advocacy efforts by presenting the latest scientific research on climate change and tangible steps with which to address sustainable development challenges. Thus, it works with multiple actors from civil society, academia, industry and all levels of government.

Integral to knowledge diplomacy is the mutuality of benefits between and among the various actors. SDSN works diligently to ensure that there are benefits for all actors. Furthermore, SDSN demonstrates that knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process, where IHERI helps to strengthen relations between and among countries while international co-operation and collaboration helps to strengthen IHERI.

9.5 Linkshttp://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/

http://deepdecarbonization.org/

http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/QE-02-19-009-EN-N-4.pdf

http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/thematic-networks/good-governance-of-extractive-and-land-resources/#other-tgs


http://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/

http://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/

http://deepdecarbonization.org/








10. Australia–India Strategic Research Fund

Since 2006, the Australia–India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF) has strengthened relations between Australia and India by supporting scientific research in subject areas which are of mutual interest to the two nations. The fund provides money for studies that are jointly undertaken by researchers in both Australia and India. Studies must address mutual priority areas for the two nations, such as agriculture, astronomy and astrophysics, biomedical devices and implants, clean energy technologies, food and water security, information and communication technology, marine sciences, nanotechnology, stem cells and vaccines. The AISRF grants can be used for research, workshops and fellowships for early-career researchers, thus focusing on the key strategies of knowledge diplomacy. The AISRF is Australia’s largest fund linked to bilateral research collaboration and demonstrates the importance it attaches to relations with India. This initiative exemplifies that knowledge diplomacy is a two-way process, as international relations are strengthened and HE, research and innovation is also advanced.

10.1 Government collaborationThe activities of the AISRF are supported by both the Australian and Indian governments. The governments together provided more than A$100 million to fund AISRF research initiatives between 2006 and 2016. The fund creation and continuing activities are co-ordinated by two key agencies in Australia – the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – and two from India – the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology. These partnerships, designed to advance scientific knowledge and address global challenges, also strengthen the relationship between Australia and India, a key component of knowledge diplomacy.

10.2 Research, knowledge production and innovation The AISRF provides grant money for scientific research that is jointly conducted by researchers in Australia and India in universities and specialised research institutes. One important example of a joint research project is in the field of biotechnology. Researchers from the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (New Delhi, India) have partnered with researchers at the Queensland University of Technology to determine the effects of drought, salinity and heat on specific strains of rice and cabbage. The research made possible by the AISRF grants benefits both Australia and India, particularly in areas such as agriculture, which is central to the long-term sustainability of crop production in both nations. Several other joint studies have been funded by the AISRF since 2006. While space exploration has not yet taken place, the Murchison Widefield Array project has seen the development of a next-generation radio telescope used to explore the origins of the universe via space observation. This project was jointly led by research teams at Curtin University (Australia) and the Raman Research Institute (India) and involved collaboration between hundreds of scientists working in 17 organisations throughout Australia, India, the USA, New Zealand and Canada.

A key characteristic of knowledge diplomacy is collaborative knowledge production that both strengthens relations between countries and addresses global issues. The AISRF activities provide a strong example of how governments can develop a context for knowledge diplomacy, led and furthered by HE actors and research partners from around the world.

10.3 Workshops and fellowshipsTo foster a larger research community around specific priority areas, the AISRF provides funding for workshops. These bring together stakeholders from government, NGOs, universities and other research institutes, thus illustrating the importance of collaboration among different actors in knowledge diplomacy. While these are funded separately from research grants, they act as a venue in which researchers can form the networks necessary to be eligible for the research grants.

An interesting example of an AISRF-supported workshop was organised by the Australian Academy of Science in 2016 and focused on women in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) subjects. Keynote speakers were chosen from women who were past AISRF grant recipients from both India and Australia. This event was central in addressing the gender inequity evident in STEMM fields and was attended by researchers from a wide range of countries. Like many knowledge diplomacy initiatives, the research projects funded by AISRF do not just benefit their host countries. Rather, the international mobility of academics, and the knowledge produced, affects academics and targets societal challenges around the world.

Early-career fellowships are the third part of AISRF’s mission. New researchers are provided with funds for travel to Australia or India to study at a different institution and conduct their own projects.


10.4 Mutuality of benefitsTogether, the multi-actor interdisciplinary research projects, the international conferences and seminars, and the support for early-career academics and researchers illustrate three of the strategies central to knowledge diplomacy. This is an example of a longstanding, seemingly sustainable, bilateral partnership which involves the support and participation of researchers and academics from two countries, resulting in the mutual benefits of strengthening research and innovation and enhancing the ongoing relations between the two countries.

10.5 Linkswww.industry.gov.au/funding-and-incentives/science-and-research/collaborating-with-india-on-science-and-research

https://publications.industry.gov.au/publications/aisfr10yearanniversary/index.html

28

http://www.industry.gov.au/funding-and-incentives/science-and-research/collaborating-with-india-on-science-and-research







11. RENKEI – The Japan–UK Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives

RENKEI is an acronym for the Research and Education Network for Knowledge Economy Initiatives and is also the Japanese word for collaboration. The organisation RENKEI is a bilateral university research network and knowledge diplomacy initiative supported by the governments of Japan and the UK. RENKEI was founded in 2012 with the goal of strengthening relationships between the two nations by developing academic–industry research collaborations that would address major societal issues. The network includes six universities in Japan and eight universities in the UK, as well as dozens of research partners from industry, business and civil society. Between 2012 and 2018, RENKEI’s working groups addressed pertinent issues such as sustainable energy, war, slavery, aerospace engineering, renaissance entrepreneurship and living with an ageing society.

11.1 Founding and organisational structureIn 2010, the UK’s Foreign Secretary William Hague visited Japan to chart a plan for stronger university collaborations between the two nations. Japan and the UK are important allies because of their noticeable similarities: both are small, densely populated islands with similar systems of HE, and both produce world-class research and degree programmes. Collaboration between university researchers was viewed as a key strategy to strengthen relationships between the two nations and tackle societal issues common to both. During the 2010 visit, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of upcoming dialogues intended to share best practices for university internationalisation and further research collaboration. At the second symposium, university leaders called for more commitment to establishing international university–industry partnerships. In response, 12 universities came together to form a working group which would work to develop new bilateral partnerships, and RENKEI was officially launched in 2012. The British Council was appointed as the main facilitator of the new network. It receives the membership fees and holds them in trust, allocating the funds that allows RENKEI to conduct its research activities.

The original 12 member universities were Kyoto University, Kyushu University, Nagoya University, Osaka University, Ritsumeikan University, Tohoku University, the University of Bristol, the University of Leeds, the University of Liverpool, Newcastle University, the University of Southampton and University College London. In 2018 the University of Edinburgh and the University of Nottingham joined RENKEI.

11.2 Actors, partnerships and networksRENKEI is an example of a sustainable knowledge diplomacy initiative that operates primarily on membership fees. The research activities and outputs of RENKEI are entirely driven by senior professors and early-career researchers who chair the working groups, organise the events and conduct the research.

Since a core goal of RENKEI is collaboration with external partners from business, industry or civil society, numerous non-university actors are also involved in RENKEI’s research activities. These external partnerships are involved to different degrees in events and projects run by the issue-specific working groups.

11.3 Education, training and workshopsEach thematic workshop has a distinct format and scope. Some workshops are designed for early-career researchers or PhD students to develop partnerships around specific research areas. Others, such as the Researcher Development School, focus on developing intercultural skills among researchers to ensure successful research collaboration. In contrast, the workshops related to aerospace engineering are designed to build research collaboration with industry. The workshops fulfil a key RENKEI goal of engaging external actors in university-to-university collaboration, a central characteristic of knowledge diplomacy. Approximately 90 external organisations have participated in RENKEI workshops as of 2018.


Each thematic working group develops a series of workshops around their topics to further research collaboration between RENKEI universities and relevant stakeholders. These workshops often take the form of a short spring or summer course hosted by a member university in either Japan or the UK. For example, in 2016 the University of Osaka worked with the University of Liverpool to host a workshop, Living with an Ageing Society. Through field visits, sessions to exchange research and insights into key challenges, the participants worked together to understand the different perceptions of ‘old age’ in Japan and the UK and to preparing research proposals for future collaboration.

11.4 Research, knowledge production and innovationOne of the central goals of RENKEI is to further university–industry collaboration on research, particularly on research initiatives that are international in scope. The working group on aerospace engineering has been particularly successful in networking their research activities with industry partners in both Japan and the UK. In 2014, research collaborations were formed at a workshop on aerospace engineering hosted at the University of Nagoya (Japan). University researchers were invited to meet industry leaders, including those whose companies are operational in both Japan and the UK, and to identify areas of mutual interest and complementary strengths to undertake joint research projects.

11.5 Mutuality of benefitsBoth Japan and the UK benefit from the binational research collaborations developed through RENKEI. For example, in the field of sustainable energy workshops were held in both Southampton and Tohoku. Workshop participants, including senior researchers, graduate students and industry partners, were placed in small groups to study and propose low-carbon energy solutions for cities. Japan benefited from these activities as specific attention was given to the Fukushima incident, and strategies were developed to address energy gaps after natural disasters. Participants from the UK designed low-carbon energy systems for a new area of Southampton. Furthermore, the global scope of the social issues and the researchers creates benefits for other regions outside Japan and the UK. Research groups went on to design sustainable energy interventions for cities in Bolivia, Taiwan, Mexico and Spain.

With the completion of RENKEI’s first five-year term (2012–17), the organisation set new strategic priorities to guide its activities between 2018 and 2023. During this second phase, RENKEI’s key research areas are climate change and health. Researchers starting new collaborations within RENKEI will focus on these themes. These issue areas were chosen to align with the priorities of the 2017 Japan–UK Joint Declaration on Prosperity Co-operation, which points to health, space, aviation, energy and climate change, advanced manufacturing, and bio-economy as important areas for university–industry research partnerships. In this way, RENKEI has positioned itself as a key contributor to Japan–UK relations while strengthening research capacity and the output of professors and graduate students at member universities.

11.6 Linkswww.britishcouncil.jp/en/programmes/higher-education/university-industry-partnership/renkei

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/641154/Japan-UK_Joint_Declaration_on_Prosperity_Cooperation.pdf

www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2016.pdf

www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2017-2018.pdf

www.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/international/action/network/renkei

www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/renkei_call_for_membership_application_ january2018.pdf


http://www.britishcouncil.jp/en/programmes/higher-education/university-industry-partnership/renkei









http://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2016.pdf

http://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2016.pdf

http://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/default/files/renkei_annual_report_2017-2018.pdf



http://www.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/international/action/network/renkei

http://www.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/international/action/network/renkei

http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/renkei_call_for_membership_application_january2018.pdf



12. Challenges

The knowledge diplomacy case studies outlined above cover many global regions and involve partnerships between HE institutions and a diverse range of other actors. They demonstrate many of the characteristics discussed in Section 3 of this paper.

But the concept of knowledge diplomacy is not without its challenges, as highlighted in a report produced in advance of Going Global 2018. 9 These challenges and arguments were first presented in that paper but are reiterated here.

First is the issue of values. Values play a central role in diplomacy and explain why the contribution of international HE and research to international relations, and vice versa, is conceptualised in a diplomatic framework and not a power paradigm.

Knowledge diplomacy recognises the diversity of priorities and resources among countries, and that interests and benefits will differ among partners. However, there is the reality and risk that knowledge itself can be used as an instrument of power to enhance self-interest, competitiveness and dominance by one country. This is why values and principles are important.

Unintended consequences are always present. While foresight can help mitigate risks, it is only hindsight that tells the story of impact. The values of collaboration and mutuality that underpin knowledge diplomacy can be easily eroded. There is the risk that education, research and innovation will be used to widen the knowledge divide among countries instead of being a bridge to address global challenges through collaboration, exchange and trust.

Knowledge diplomacy can easily become a buzzword to camouflage national and regional ambitions to promote self-interest at the expense of mutual interests and benefits. As the concept of knowledge diplomacy becomes more commonplace, unrealistic expectations can be made about its role and contributions. Knowledge diplomacy is not a silver bullet. Expectations of its contribution to international relations need to be managed to avoid early misunderstandings or dismissal of its value and potential.

There are many unanswered questions about the concept of knowledge diplomacy. Will politicians appreciate knowledge diplomacy as an international relations instrument that can advance the interests of some nations without limiting the prospects of others? Can knowledge diplomacy be operationalised in light of competing priorities within and between countries and regions? Can the contribution and impact of knowledge diplomacy be measured? Is it feasible to develop mechanisms where education, research and innovation complement each other to achieve goals that each could not accomplish on their own? Will knowledge diplomacy be seen as a two-way process whereby strong relations between and among countries will help to strengthen HE and research? These are but a few of the questions that need to be explored.

Developing a framework, strategies and commitment to knowledge diplomacy cannot be done without facing the harsh realities of international politics and the challenges of a more competitive and turbulent world. However, we must continue to ask the question of whether we can afford to ignore the potential of knowledge diplomacy to address and contribute to the resolution of national, regional and global challenges.

9. Knight (2018).


References and further reading

Bjola, C and Kornprobst, M (2013) Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Chou, CP and Spangler, J (2018) Cultural and Education Exchanges between Rival Societies: Cooperation and Competition in an Interdependent World. Springer Nature.

Cooper, A, Heine, J and Thakur, R (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flink, T and Schreiterer, U (2010) Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: toward a typology of national approaches. Science and Public Policy 37/9: 665–677.

Gienow-Hecht, J and Donfried, M (2010) Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy. New York: Berghahn Books.

Knight, J (2015) ‘The Potential of Knowledge Diplomacy: Higher Education and International Relations’, in Weimer, L (ed) A Wealth of Nations. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, 37–45.

Knight, J (2018) Knowledge Diplomacy. The way forward? Discussion paper. London: British Council.

Melinsen, J (2007) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Meusburger, P, Gregory, D and Suarsana, L (eds) (2015) Geographies of Knowledge and Power. Dordrecht: Springer.

Nye, JS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Nye, JS (2005) Soft Power and Higher Education. Forum Futures 2005: 11–14.

Nye, JS (2009) Get smart: combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs 88/4: 160–163.

Pigman, G (2010) Contemporary Diplomacy: Representation and Communication in a Globalized World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ruffini, PB (2017) Science and Diplomacy: A New Dimension of International Relations. Springer Nature.

Ryan, M (1998) Knowledge Diplomacy: Global Competition and the Politics of Intellectual Property. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

UNESCO (2005) Towards a Knowledge Society. Paris: UNESCO.

Wojciuk, A (2018) Empires of Knowledge in International Relations: Education and Science as Sources of Power for the State. Abingdon: Routledge.


About the author

Dr Jane Knight of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, and distinguished visiting professor at the University of Johannesburg, focuses her research on the international dimension of higher education at the institutional, national, regional and international levels. Her work in more than 75 countries with universities, governments and UN agencies helps to bring a comparative, development and international perspective to her research, teaching and policy work. She is the author of numerous publications, is the co-founder of the African Network for the Internationalization of Education, and sits on the advisory boards of several international organisations, universities and journals. She is the recipient of several international awards, including the Outstanding Researcher Award from the European Association for Institutional Research, the Gilbert Medal from Universitas 21, and two honorary doctorates for her contribution to higher education internationalisation.


All images © Mat Wright

© British Council 2019 / K006 The British Council is the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities.